Re: Potential design space of LET/assignment

>
>>
> The term "sophisitic" (sic) has been used.   There is no trickery  
> going on.

To be clear I was refering to calling it "syntactic sugar" when it was  
previously a distinct feature of the language.

I don't the definitions are sophistic.

I'm out of the office today and discussing stuff of this complexity on  
a phone is challenging, so I won't attempt it.

>